IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-677836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges to a Policy Treatment of Speculative Trading Motivated by Differences in Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Darrell Duffie

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the challenges faced by a policy treatment of speculative trading that is motivated by differences in beliefs. The first challenge is philosophical. Suppose two investors prefer to speculate with each other, under the common knowledge that they are motivated to trade purely by a difference in beliefs (unconditional probability assessments). In the absence of third-party costs, are there conditions under which society should try to prevent them from doing so? The second challenge is the existence of a rationale for a policy based on beliefs, as distinct from other determinants of risk preferences. The third challenge is the ability of enforcement agencies to monitor the distinction between belief-motivated trade and trade motivated by more obvious welfare-enhancing activities, such as hedging, liquidity provision, or acquiring payoff-relevant information.

Suggested Citation

  • Darrell Duffie, 2014. "Challenges to a Policy Treatment of Speculative Trading Motivated by Differences in Beliefs," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 173-182.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/677836
    DOI: 10.1086/677836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677836
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677836
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/677836?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morris, Stephen, 1995. "The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 227-253, October.
    2. Alp Simsek, 2013. "Speculation and Risk Sharing with New Financial Assets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(3), pages 1365-1396.
    3. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    4. Gabrielle Gayer & Itzhak Gilboa & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "Pareto Efficiency with Different Beliefs," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 151-171.
    5. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David & Vind, Karl, 1983. "On State Dependent Preferences and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1021-1031, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haddad, Valentin & Ho, Paul & Loualiche, Erik, 2022. "Bubbles and the value of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 69-84.
    2. Liebrich M. HIEMSTRA, 2022. "The Financial Side of Energy Markets in the Low-Carbon Transition," RSCAS Working Papers 2022/50, European University Institute.
    3. Eduardo Dávila, 2023. "Optimal Financial Transaction Taxes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 5-61, February.
    4. Sprumont, Yves, 2018. "Belief-weighted Nash aggregation of Savage preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 222-245.
    5. Blume, Lawrence E. & Cogley, Timothy & Easley, David A. & Sargent, Thomas J. & Tsyrennikov, Viktor, 2018. "A case for incomplete markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 191-221.
    6. Eric A. Posner & E. Glen Weyl, 2014. "Benefit-Cost Paradigms in Financial Regulation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 1-34.
    7. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2018. "Regulation of trades based on differences in beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 133-141.
    8. Arnold, Lutz G. & Brunner, Stephan, 2015. "The economics of rational speculation in the presence of positive feedback trading," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 161-174.
    9. Steven D. Baker & Burton Hollifield & Emilio Osambela, 2018. "Preventing Controversial Catastrophes," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-052, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    10. Pivato, Marcus, 2022. "Bayesian social aggregation with accumulating evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    11. Martin T. Bohl & Martin Stefan & Claudia Wellenreuther, 2019. "An Introduction to ESMA’s Commitments of Traders Reports: Do Hedgers Really Hedge?," CQE Working Papers 8619, Center for Quantitative Economics (CQE), University of Muenster.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    2. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    3. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2006. "Preference aggregation under uncertainty: Savage vs. Pareto," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 430-440, February.
    4. Xiangyu Qu, 2020. "Belief-consistent Pareto dominance," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(2), pages 219-229, October.
    5. Eduardo Dávila, 2023. "Optimal Financial Transaction Taxes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 5-61, February.
    6. Jean Baccelli, 2015. "Do Bets Reveal Beliefs?," Post-Print hal-01462293, HAL.
    7. ÅžimÅŸek, Alp, 2021. "The Macroeconomics of Financial Speculation," CEPR Discussion Papers 15733, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Brandl, Florian, 2021. "Belief-averaging and relative utilitarianism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. Takashi Hayashi, 2019. "What Should Society Maximise Under Uncertainty?," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 446-478, December.
    10. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2019. "Fair social decision under uncertainty and belief disagreements," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 775-816, June.
    11. Haddad, Valentin & Ho, Paul & Loualiche, Erik, 2022. "Bubbles and the value of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 69-84.
    12. Robert F. Nau, 2003. "A Generalization of Pratt-Arrow Measure to Nonexpected-Utility Preferences and Inseparable Probability and Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1089-1104, August.
    13. Chew, Soo Hong & Wang, Wenqian, 2020. "On the robustness of indeterminacy in subjective probability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    14. Elias Tsakas, 2022. "Belief identification with state-dependent utilities," Papers 2203.10505, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    15. Nehring, Klaus, 2009. "Imprecise probabilistic beliefs as a context for decision-making under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1054-1091, May.
    16. Giat, Yahel & Subramanian, Ajay, 2013. "Dynamic contracting under imperfect public information and asymmetric beliefs," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 2833-2861.
    17. Renou, Ludovic & Schlag, Karl H., 2010. "Minimax regret and strategic uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 264-286, January.
    18. Edi Karni & Philippe Mongin, 2000. "On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 233-248, February.
    19. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    20. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/677836. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.